Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   speedy keep as pure disruption. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Vladimir Putin
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and userfy for creators and/or supporting editors, until all attack POV is removed, per BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid use of a "criticism" article per WP:POVFORK and based on the fact that the source article is already so large than splitting into sections is valid. I have concerns over the naming of this article as a POV stance, but I can offer no better alternatives immediately. JRP (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no clear deletion rationale given. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No any rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator.Biophys (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep'  Putin is important enough. Some effort needs to be made to find not just criticisms, but RS  discussions of the sort of criticisms he gets, & why. DGG (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge--if there is criticism of Putin, it should be in the main article. I'd like to make a principled stand here also, but I'm a vox clamantis already. Whatever info in this article is worth keeping should be incorporated into respective sections in the main article, not in some separate "criticism" section, which just attracts flaming and soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Completely valid concept for an article. Needs to be sourced and NPOV, but thats a matter for editors, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- POV is not a basis of deletion, it is a basis for editor work. Tag it with appropriate tags, if you wish, but POV issues aren't for AfD. --haha169 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 06:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator's request for deletion on similar articles seems like abuses of the procedure.--Caspian blue 07:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The entire article is available word for word in Vladimir Putin. The information in this article was intentionally created by an editor by cherry-picking information to create a POV-fork. Many people forget that we are here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to advocate and to criticise (in the negative sense of the word) figures that they dearly hate; nor are we here to write glowing articles. Let's go thru this article. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin is available word for word at Vladimir_Putin. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin is available word for word at Vladimir_Putin (next to the photo of Putin Tu-160 cockpit). Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin (just above the photo of Putin Tu-160 cockpit). Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin belongs at Vladimir_Putin. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin is available word for word at Vladimir_Putin (just below photo of Putin with Schroeder). It is plainly obvious that this was created as a WP:POVFORK in order to have an end-run around the WP:NPOV policy. Now if one looks at this piece by piece. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin belongs (and is already present at) Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. The rest belongs in an article called Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin (which is what the other attack "grotesque" WP:SYN article at Putinism basically is - and I say grotesque because the editor [who is currently blocked] who added most of the SYN himself said that was his plan). The trick is to have balance. Whilst Putin (and Russia in general) are hated in the Western media -- it's nothing new -- Russophobia goes back centuries to England and Denmark -- people tend to forget that Putin had genuine 80% approval ratings in Russia -- the highest of any national leader, and even now as PM has approval ratings in the mid-60s. Given the existence of this article, why shouldn't we break out all the positive things, and create Support of Vladimir Putin, because the current article is not a criticism article in the scholarly sense of the word. Given that all information is already present in other relevant articles, and the creation of relevant of NPOV articles should be a priority, this POVFORK should be deleted. --Russavia Dialogue 07:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Commment I thought you're anti-Putin given this edit warring.--Caspian blue 07:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Vladimir Putin, there's no need for the Criticism of Vladimir Putin to have its own article. Oli OR Pyfan! 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.